Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not really. I can look outside of my window to see what's happening. I really don't need a meteorologist to tell me.Once again, bullshit. Anything which truly "advances the entire human race" becomes a priceless commodity in the private market because they people will pay for it. All of the R&D that you want to point to in the public sector was the result of military defense (such as space exploration - a direct response to the U.S.S.R. sending a rocket into space). Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money. The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries.
Furthermore, even if you were telling the truth (and you're absolutely not) - it doesn't matter. No where is the federal government authorized to reach beyond their 18 enumerated powers whenever they feel is will "advance the entire human race". If you progressives want something done by the federal government - then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can't get the votes to do so, then respect the fact that we the people have spoken and rejected your desire.
NWeatherService WAS priceless to the "general public" at the time it was created. But there was NO commercial value to the general free market. In fact using that example, the ONLY stakeholders I can think of would be the Insurance Companies. And the very idea of an Insurance company partnering with competitors to do high tech development sounds like a disaster to me. Govt has no particular expertise in it either. But as CONTRACTOR was probably the best place to get it done.
And don't try to sell me on the fact that it saves lives. We had a National Weather Service during Hurricane Katrina. How did that work out?
That may very well be the case.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.
The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.
We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.
The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.
I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.
I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.
Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.
MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.
This is the basis for my argument.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The NWS along with early NASA acrivity can be argued as being necessary for national defense, the NWS is used not only to predict weather events in the US but in other theaters of operation. Knowing weather forecast helps us protect our military assets at home and abroad. The civilian benefits are just a great side effect.
Not really. I can look outside of my window to see what's happening. I really don't need a meteorologist to tell me.Once again, bullshit. Anything which truly "advances the entire human race" becomes a priceless commodity in the private market because they people will pay for it. All of the R&D that you want to point to in the public sector was the result of military defense (such as space exploration - a direct response to the U.S.S.R. sending a rocket into space). Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money. The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries.
Furthermore, even if you were telling the truth (and you're absolutely not) - it doesn't matter. No where is the federal government authorized to reach beyond their 18 enumerated powers whenever they feel is will "advance the entire human race". If you progressives want something done by the federal government - then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can't get the votes to do so, then respect the fact that we the people have spoken and rejected your desire.
NWeatherService WAS priceless to the "general public" at the time it was created. But there was NO commercial value to the general free market. In fact using that example, the ONLY stakeholders I can think of would be the Insurance Companies. And the very idea of an Insurance company partnering with competitors to do high tech development sounds like a disaster to me. Govt has no particular expertise in it either. But as CONTRACTOR was probably the best place to get it done.
And don't try to sell me on the fact that it saves lives. We had a National Weather Service during Hurricane Katrina. How did that work out?
Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.
You are innovators and inventors. And the govt has always funded it.
Nothye havent.
You've obviously never heard of this little agency called NASA...
You've touched upon an issue that free marketers fail to grasp (or maybe just don't want to). In the corporate world with maybe a few exceptions like IBM, Bell Labs, and Elon Musk's enterprises, if it's not going to pay off in about 5 years, some bean counter will axe it.That may very well be the case.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.
The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".
That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.
Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.
The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.
We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.
The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.
I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.
I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.
Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.
MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.
That may very well be the case.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.
The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.
We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.
The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.
I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.
I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.
Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.
MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.
This is the basis for my argument.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The NWS along with early NASA acrivity can be argued as being necessary for national defense, the NWS is used not only to predict weather events in the US but in other theaters of operation. Knowing weather forecast helps us protect our military assets at home and abroad. The civilian benefits are just a great side effect.
NWS was no more for defense than the Lewis/Clark expedition. GEEBUS -- why is a Libertarian explaining to you "Constitutionalists" the fair and reasoned use of "nation scale engineering" ??
You speak of totalitarian regimes and mention Lincoln. Well done!Lincoln, our nation's greatest president, expanded the power of the federal government.Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
Use the Constitution. It works. It keeps the federal government in check, as is its purpose.
Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
You've touched upon an issue that free marketers fail to grasp (or maybe just don't want to). In the corporate world with maybe a few exceptions like IBM, Bell Labs, and Elon Musk's enterprises, if it's not going to pay off in about 5 years, some bean counter will axe it.That may very well be the case.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.
The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.
We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.
The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.
I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.
I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.
Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.
MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.
Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.
You are innovators and inventors. And the govt has always funded it.
Nothye havent.
You've obviously never heard of this little agency called NASA...
It's been the case for as long as I can remember. Big science requires big bucks and most companies couldn't afford it in the first place and the ones who possibly could don't want to engage in long term, open ended R&D. The examples you mentioned were developed in garages. That ain't gonna happen with the Human Genome Project, the internet, nanotechnology or advanced energy sources.You've touched upon an issue that free marketers fail to grasp (or maybe just don't want to). In the corporate world with maybe a few exceptions like IBM, Bell Labs, and Elon Musk's enterprises, if it's not going to pay off in about 5 years, some bean counter will axe it.That may very well be the case.The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.
The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.
We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.
The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.
I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.
I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.
Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.
MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.
That wasn't the case just 20 years ago. Because the RATE of innovation feeds the system. When you had "critical mass" like in Silicon Valley, anything was fair game.. And if the "big guys" weren't interested, you'd still find people that could chart a 10 year path to "sneek up IBM" and cut them off at the knees.
The "big guys" are actually very vulnerable. They don't KNOW what business they are in anymore. Lost touch with innovation as a whole. Look at the feud over "who ruined HP".. They were a GIANT without a business..
The KEY is feeding the "reactor".. Elon Musk ain't special. Jeff Bezos ain't special. They are both SUCCESSFUL and pretty smart and kudos for that. But you need to create an enviro where 10s of THOUSANDS can be like them WITHOUT the $Bills in the bank already...
Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
I'm Belgian, married to an American, I'll tell you how it is organised here. My countryman and me feel that people have some basic rights. Health, education, a decent roof over your head and food in your mouth. Although there are of course always some people who fall through the cracks here, in general the society provides those things. If you want more, (luxuries), you will have to work for it. I've noticed that among most Republicans, a person has rights to nothing he is unwilling or unable to provide for himself. Self-reliance to a fault. Now although I understand the sentiment, I disagree with it. We both live in wealthy societies whose wealth allows us to give without having to miss out for yourself to much. Seems a Christian way of thinking to me, since a lot of those same Republican claim to be people of deep faith , that shouldn't be hard to agree with.Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
Government is a beautiful thing
Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin.
The Democratic Party would elect Stalin in a heartbeat if you could
you have that butt backward..... as the installation of a russian puppet as president proves.
people who hate government and have no respect for what it can do....and only use it for their own benefit.... shouldn't be allowed to run government.
but i do love how you whine about gubmint when it's your loons who want to interfere with people's most personal beliefs and choices.
but it's not like the right is rational.
You don't even understand the actual ideology.Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
You lost me at "collective" you little communist fuck.
That means we could never again elect a Dumbocrat. The entire party should just shut down now based on your comments.people who hate government and have no respect for what it can do....and only use it for their own benefit.... shouldn't be allowed to run government.
Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.
Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.
Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.
However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.
When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.
